About your Search

20121222
20121230
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17
grow at 4% asleep at the the right policies in place. my views will never fix the deficit soccer in the dirt. [applause] so therefore you shouldn't take my word for it. you should take the word for the people who are experts on the economy. and here's our product. you are the first to see it. so we published a book, "the 4% solution." jim is going to introduce many of the folks who are here who have written some of the chap verse. and then brendan miniter come in the very able editor at the bush summer will be conduct in the panel. if you please welcome jim glassman, founding executive director of the george w. bush institute and has led us nobly in her first 18 months of existence. for practice have you here. it's for coming. [applause] >> thank you, president bush. panelists may. president bush talk to you about what we are doing in africa. one of the waste to sum up what the bush institute does is advancing freedom. you can't be free if you're sick. he can't be free either if you live in a society ruled that the gators as the people of our brand or syria or cuba do. but the fr
but the debate over the deficit and the debt that is behind this? >> well, if you go back to 2001 and thereafter, the cost of the war was not included in the budget except the military and the defense budget. but the additional costs were not reflected in the budget. there were always supplementals. so they didn't show as a deficit. a vendor ackley to the debt. so while the budgets were reasonable in that period of time, the actual spending didn't show in the budget and people didn't pay as much attention to the debt as they do today because it kept mounting and so we borrowed to pay for the war and in fact we didn't ask people to make sacrifices financially. >> there is a difference between borrowing in the future, paying for work and paying back words, we are having to pay right now. people might have felt differently if they had felt the pinch right at that time. we would have asked different questions and were asked, and i think that is one of the reasons we got where we are. and it's where we are. >> on appropriations could you have been any more vocal about it to provide us getting into t
a $6 billion surplus when it comes to exporting services, and a huge deficit when it comes to manufacturing. so the -- the finance done correctly which is figuring out how to mamp capital with good -- match capital with good ideas is important and having complex innovations in that is important for america's system. the problem is short termism, short term thinking, where finance comes come in and bankrupt companies for short term gain rather than thinking what's the viable, long term model of a long term rate of return? i think that has to do with corporate governance laws for incentives and structures that don't require -- that incentivize managers to make long term decisions rather than maximizing just the quarterly shareholders' profits. >> did you see the incentives that could be changed to emphasize smallness rather than bigness? >> absolutely, and i thinking the -- a lot of the department of commerce is programmed to help small and medium sized businesses. there is the best -- i took 50% of the jobs in manufacturing are small and medium sized companies, and small com
the president that with the deficit a couple years ago. democrats signed on to the idea of simplicity and reducing tax rates across the board. they didn't go as far as the flat tax, but they addressed the concept and on entitlements there needs to be fundamental reform. so i think after the election was going to be the surprise next year is there's going to be a lot of ability to get this done because i'm a democrat, not the majority, but certainly the minority realize these things have to be done. so i'm in that sense optimistic and i think romney will win the election. i think he will push these things democrats support. one of the things we have not is in terms of entitlements, there's this attitude that we must raise the retirement age to 85 and shoot grandma so she doesn't take any more medicare or something like that. they're very positive reforms. i mentioned the cell phones. i can't link it to the same creativity and health care are you create more health care, cheaper health care and a safety net is said of the crazy system we have today? government is friendly aquaculture. b
's over the budget and the debt ceiling and a deficit-reduction, also the reading and what happened in egypt and libya, and so i'm looking at how obama made the decisions he made and why he took the actions he took in that very perilous time politically but i also explained how this is all done in a way to set up the 2
in the current discussions about how to curb the federal deficits and avoid having us fling ourselves over the so-called fiscal cliff in a couple of weeks. we are trying to sort out the pluses and minuses of this proposal, which we find is more complicated than one might imagine, and it's complicated further by the shifting landscape of medicare policy, federal health policy, in light of the affordable care act, and the state of health care system generally. hence, today's program, and we're going to take a close look at some of the pros and cons with the help of some of the country's leading medicare and retirement policy analysts. we are pleased to have as a partner in today's program, a kaiser family foundation, leader in health policy analysis and health journalism and communication. we're especially happy to have as a co-moderator today, tricia neuman, whose the senior vice president of the foundation and a director of its program on medicare policy. and i have a quick note for you. if you are watching live on c-span, or for that matter watching the webcast, which will be available beginning
security came from a sound economy. he was a deficit hawk. he controlled government spending and package. his famous speech warning against military-industrial complex came at the end of his presidency but, in fact, he been working on it all a long. mostly behind the scenes. heaven help us, he liked to say, that we'll get a president who knows less about the military than i do. this approach to the military was not just about the economy. in the berlin crisis in 58-59 and in early crisis with korea and vietnam in 1953, 54, the almost straight, the suez crisis in 1956, eisenhower was playing a bigger game for higher stakes. a west point cadet and a young army officer, ike had been a great poker player. indeed, he was so good that he had to give it up. he was taking too much money from his fellow officers and it was hurting his career. he switched to bridge, but he never forgot how to block it with the soviets he bluffed with nuclear weapons. as only a real warrior can, ike hated war. seriously, the great war hero had never been in combat. in world war i had been stateside training troops
real national security was from a sound economy. he was a deficit hawk, boy, we could use him today, who controlled government spending and taxes. the famous speech warning against the industrial complex was at the end of the presidency, but worked on it all along behind the scenes. heaven help us he liked to say when we get a president who knows less about the military than i do. it was not about the economy or saving money. in the berlin crisis and earlier crisis with korea and vietnam in 1953 over the strait in 1954-55 and 1958 in the suez crisis in 1956, he was planning a bigger gain for higher stakes. west point cadet and young army officer, ike was a great poker player, and, indeed, so good, he had to give it up. he was taking too much money from the fellow officers hurting his career. he switched to bridge, but he never forgot how to bluff. the soviets, he bluffed with nuclear weapons. as only a real warrior can, ike hated war. curiously, the great war hero was never in combat. in world war i, he was training troops to his great chagrin, and world war ii, he was too valuable
. a plan that would simplify the tax code, shrink the deficit, protect the taxpayers, and grow the economy. but democrats consistently rejected those offers. the president chose instead to spend his time on the campaign trail. this was even after he got reelected. and congressional democrats sat on their hands. now republicans have bent over backwards. we stepped way, way out of our comfort zone. we wanted an agreement, but we had no takers. the phone never rang. and so now here we are five days from the new year, and we might finally start talking. democrats have had an entire year to put forward a balanced bipartisan proposal, and if they had something that fit the bill, i'm sure the majority leader would have been able to deliver the votes the president would have needed to pass it here in the senate. and we wouldn't be in this mess. but here we are once again at the end of the year staring at a crisis we should have dealt with literally months ago. make no mistake, the only reason democrats have been trying to deflect attention on to me and my colleagues over the past few weeks is that
of extremists in terms of our debt and deficit, that we're going to all of a sudden change that? and why are we changing that? especially since most of this money isn't going to be spent, isn't even going to be initialized for at least two years. i'd ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set aside and amendment 3370 be called up. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn, for himself and mr. mccain, proposes an amendment numbered 3370, as modified. mr. coburn: i'd ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: and per the request of senator schumer, i put a division in this amendment so we would have two votes on it separating out the fisheries because he thought that was important. i was glad to accommodate his needs. the main -- mr. schumer: will the gentleman yield? mr. coburn: i would be happy to. mr. schumer: i just want to thank him, he was gracious. there are two separate issues here, one of them i think most of us on this side would accept. the
support it and its effort as everybody knows on the deficit reduction. i'm not sure that anybody really listened, at least they put in the effort. that's apolitical, by the way. so in addition, connie noted it was no surprise to her at the time that based on senator simpson's record in the senate and his bipartisanship work, that he would be chasing to be a cochair of the commission. lastly, i just want to say as we understand, mr. hardy had full access to senator simpson's records, diaries, finance, full access. i will say the senator did mention he's been married 57 years, so anybody that gives full access after 57 years, i think that's pretty impressive. but connie just really wanted to welcome everybody and say we are thrilled to be sponsoring this. [applause] >> nowcome i had the pleasure of introducing what i call the bravest man in the world, dawn hardy, author of the book. i don't you could possibly put all this in one book and decide what to leave in and what to take out at a 70s had senator simpson on msnbc cometh and then ann fox, you change the conversation about politics, c
intermediate deficit problem and implementation of the cost saving measures strengthened over time in the aca will deal with their long-term health care problem. so we are not that far away and we have other tremendous strengths in our country that would allow us to make the kind of investment to transform the economy, to do with the reality of stagnant wages and a sense of diminished opportunities. we have strengths. we can do it. we need the public to rain and behavior that's destructive and we need political leaders to act forcefully. given enough to bipartisan commissions and searched enough for bipartisan consensus. for sensible hard all politics along these lines. >> norm, i particularly cutie take the money question. a couple political had a great shared that showed that party polarization in congress was directly correlated with increasing concentrations of wealth from increasing equality went together artisan polarization. and the money question you can handle so many different ways. i'm really concerned about it posed citizens united system with a federal election commission that's
after that. the tax cut deal, big fights over the budget and the debt ceiling and deficit reduction and also the bin laden grade and reagan but happened in egypt and libya. so i'm looking at how obama made the decisions he made and why he took the actions he took in that very perilous time politically would also explain how this is all done in a way to set up the 2012 campaign that we just went through. he had a theory indy to do big hit in 2010, yet the theory that he could make the 2012 race a choice not just between him and mitt romney but a choice between different ideologies and different approaches to government and values. everything he did in that timeframe he kept trying to tether to this big idea. when i wrote the book of course we didn't know how things were going to end up on november 6, 2012. i looked at how he developed his governing strategy and electoral strategy and it really dominated. this is the back story to what happened with this presidential campaign. >> david corn, showdown is his most recent book and we are here at the national press club.
the past year, we have seen great progress [inaudible] leading the way. but just as the u.k. deficit is not balanced with the government public transport issue are not solved in one year. we're public transport continued a national priority. we can't -- [inaudible] for the like of my young cousin. we can deliver more transport to get students from point a to point b. we can build a better, brighter future for young people. so when the opposition argument say it's not a national campaign, a focus of the divided region. i tell you this, divided we are weak, but united are the nation we are strong. more nation, one notion, one campaign. better public transport. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much ib keyed for that. i note we have been joined by the former government chief when the labour party was in office nick browne. the member of parliament. it's great to have you here. thank you for coming. to oppose the motion, i call from the east of england. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. we are here for one reason. to make contain and empower the young people that we so proudly
progress [inaudible] leading the way. but just as the u.k. deficit is not balanced with the government public transport issue are not solved in one year. we're public transport continued a national priority. we can't -- [inaudible] for the like of my young cousin. we can deliver more transport to get students from point a to point b. we can build a better, brighter future for young people. so when the opposition argument say it's not a national campaign, a focus of the divided region. i tell you this, divided we are weak, but united are the nation we are strong. more nation, one notion, one campaign. better public transport. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much ib keyed for that. i note we have been joined by the former government chief when the labour party was in office nick browne. the member of parliament. it's great to have you here. thank you for coming. to oppose the motion, i call from the east of england. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. we are here for one reason. to make contain and empower the young people that we so proudly represent. but, -- the parliament ca
code, shrink the deficit, protect the taxpayers and grow the economy. but democrats consistently rejected those offers. the president chose instead to spend his time on the campaign trail. reelected. and congressional democrats sat on theirel hands. now republicans have bent over backwards. we stepped way, way out of our comfort zone. we wanted an agreement. w but we had no takers. but the phone never rang, and so now here we are five days from the new year, and we might finally start talking. democrats have had an entire year to put forward a balance withed, bipartisan proposal, and if they had something to fit the bilker i'm sure the majority maj leader would have been able toe deliver the votes the president would haveld needed to pass it here in the senate. and we wouldn't beth in this met but here we are, once again, at the end of the year staring at a crisis we shouldri have dealt wt literally months ago. make no mistake, the only reason democrats have been trying to deflect attention onto me and me colleagues over the past fewt weeks is that they don't have plan of their o
. but since everyone understands if you are serious about the deficits and the debt you don't begin our program they've and imagine how you are going to sort of put that together in the end. and so, i think that is a sort of fundamental difference. democrats are protective, and therefore their political incentives are to play the same hardball with permanent campaign hardball, they are not prepared to put at risk the full faith and credit of the united states. they are not prepared to shut the government down. they just won't do that because they believe the government plays an important role. conservatives, real conservatives want the government that they have, and not a bit more that they need, but they are not wild and crazy about just dumping on that. and i think we have -- it is almost a radical perspective, not a conservative perspective. again, it is one that is much more protective of the government, and i think the difference is real. >> i want to threw out a theory we may not want to go after the hash tag triet 1 feet. it's all bill clinton's be fivefold, and starting in the 1
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17